Integrating Respondents’ Knowledge in the Moheshkhali Island MSP: A Framework for Sustainable Management Planning

Authors

  • Mohammad Saydul Islam Sarkar
  • Md. Mazaharul Islam

Abstract

Across the globe, efforts are underway to establish comprehensive plans for oceanic regions, aimed at fostering sustainable governance and management of these vital environments. One such approach gaining prominence is marine spatial planning (MSP), which aims to systematically arrange the utilization of ocean space and resources as well as facilitate harmonious interactions among various human activities. This method is increasingly being embraced as an integral tool in the realm of sustainable ocean and coastal management. Yet, time and resource constraints frequently limit the availability of data for MSP creation, as well as people's engagement and participation in the MSP process. This study shows how respondent observations may be utilized to establish the causes for MSP development and implementation in a consistent manner. The research reveals how respondents give significant information about MSP growth while also creating a welcoming environment for stakeholders to share their own views and engage in the planning process. For Moheshkhali Island, a public engagement survey was taken to generate spatially clear information on stakeholder values and management preferences. The survey revealed that respondents knew about the ocean and coastal area, believed that the ocean and coastal area could be used beneficially where there might be some arguments, and gave their opinions on proper ocean management, which is needed and possible. It also revealed that ocean management is challenging because of its vast area, user-user conflicts, natural calamities,scarcity of rules and regulations, and also paucity of people's consent. They believed that adequate planning is essential in the MSP process, as is willingness, cooperation between different development tasks, and the management of user-user disputes. People on Moheshkhali Island were almost aware of the MSP, the planning for ocean governance and management, and also expected to see a step on the part of the implementation of the MSP in their area. They expressed their views on MSP development as a timeconsuming issue for ocean management, that MSP would benefit local people’s livelihoods, and that the ocean would be sustainably used by the advancing MSP at Moheshkhali Island.

References

Pomeroy R, Douvere F. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process.

Mar Policy. 2008;32(5):816-22. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.017.

Douvere F. Marine spatial planning: concepts, current practice and linkages to other management

approaches. Ghent, Belgium: Ghent University; 2010.

Papageorgiou M. Coastal and marine tourism: A challenging factor in Marine Spatial Planning.

Ocean & Coastal Management. 2016; 129: 44–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.05.006.

Douvere F, Ehler CN. New perspectives on sea use management: initial findings from European

experience with marine spatial planning. J Environ Manage. 2009; 90 (1): 77–88. doi:

1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.004, PMID 18786758.

Douvere F, Maes F, Vanhulle A, Schrijvers J. The role of Marine Spatial Planning in sea use

management: the Belgian case. Mar Policy. 2007; 31 (2): 182–191. doi:

1016/j.marpol.2006.07.003.

Gissi E, de Vivero JLS. Exploring marine spatial planning education: challenges in structuring

transdisciplinarity. Mar Policy. 2016; 74: 43–57. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.016.

Jay S, Klenke T, Janßen H. Consensus and variance in the ecosystem approach to Marine Spatial

Planning: German perspectives and multi-actor implications. Land Use Policy. 2016; 54: 129–138.

doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.015.

Fulton EA, Link JS, Kaplan IC, Savina-Rolland M, Johnson P, Ainsworth C et al. Lessons in

modelling and management of Marine Ecosystems: the Atlantis experience. Fish Fish. 2011; 12 (2):

–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00412.x.

Caddy JF, Cochrane KL. A review of fisheries management past and present and some future

perspectives for the Third Millennium. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2001; 44 (9–10): 653–682.

doi: 10.1016/S0964-5691(01)00074-6.

Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M. Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation

prioritisation. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, editor. Spatial Conservation

Prioritisation: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press; 2009. pp 185–195.

Guerry AD, Ruckelshaus MH, Arkema KK, Bernhardt JR, Guannel G, Kim C-K et al. Modeling

benefits from nature: using ecosystem services to inform coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. Int

J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 2012; 8 (1–2): 107–121. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2011.647835.

Rengstorf AM, Yesson C, Brown C, Grehan AJ. High-resolution habitat suitability modelling can

improve conservation of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the Deep Sea. J Biogeogr. 2013; 40 (9):

–1714. doi: 10.1111/jbi.12123.

Bruggeman J, Bolding K. A general framework for aquatic biogeochemical models. Environ

Modell Softw. 2014; 61: 249–265. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.04.002.

Schiller A, Herzfeld M, Brinkman R, Stuart G. Monitoring, predicting, and managing one of the

seven natural wonders of the world. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2014; 95 (1): 23–30. doi:

1175/BAMS-D-12-00202.1.

Sorensen JC, McCreary ST. Institutional arrangements for management of coastal resources.

Coastal management Publication No. 1. Washington, DC, USA: USAID; 1990.

Spalding MJ. The new blue economy: the future of sustainability. J Ocean Coast Econ. 2016; 2 (2):

doi: 10.15351/2373-8456.1052.

Stewart RH. Introduction to physical oceanography. College Station, TX, USA: Texas A&M

University; 2008.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. New York, NY: United Nations; 1982.

Wang C, Corbett JJ, Firestone J. Modeling energy use and emissions from North American

shipping: application of the ship traffic, energy, and environment model. Environ Sci Technol.

; 41 (9): 3226–3232. doi: 10.1021/es060752e, PMID 17539530.

Janßen H, Göke C, Luttmann A. Knowledge integration in marine spatial planning: A practitioners’

view on decision support tools with special focus on Marxan. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2019;

: 130–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.11.006.

Das NG, Hossain MS. Assessment and mitigation of natural disasters for sustainable livelihoods of

coastal communities in the Maheshkhali Island, Bangladesh. Oceanogr Fish Open Access J. 2017;

(4): 120–133.

Han W. Oceans and climate. International encyclopedia of geography: people, the earth,

environment and technology: people, the earth, environment and technology. Hoboken, NJ, USA:

Wiley; 2016.

Hallegraeff GM. Ocean climate change, phytoplankton community responses, and harmful algal

blooms: a formidable predictive challenge. J Phycol. 2010; 46 (2): 220–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-

2010.00815.x.

Clark JR. The status of integrated coastal zone management: a global assessment. Coral Gables,

FL, USA: CAMPNET. University of Miami. 1991.

Klinger DH, Maria Eikeset A, Davíðsdóttir B, Winter A-M, Watson JR. The mechanics of Blue

Growth: management of Oceanic Natural Resource use with multiple, interacting sectors. Mar

Policy. 2018; 87: 356–362. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.025.

Marone E, Marone L. UNCLOS framework of ocean governance: ethical dimensions. [Online]

Available at https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2018/EGU2018-4025.pdf [Accessed on

October 2023]

Katona S, Polsenberg J, Lowndes J, Halpern BS, Pacheco E, Mosher L et al. (2017). Navigating the

seascape of ocean management: waypoints on the voyage toward sustainable use; 2017. Available

at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315788211_Navigating_the_seascape_of_ocean_

management_waypoints_on_the_voyage_toward_sustainable_use [Accessed on October 2023]

Ehler C. World-Wide status and trends of Maritime/marine spatial planning. Presented at the 2nd

International Conference on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning. Paris: UNESCO; 2017.

Vallejo SMA. Integrated marine policies: goals and constraints. In: Ocean management in global

change. Proceedings of the conference on ocean management in global change. Boca Raton, FL,

USA: CRC Press; 2003.

Lewison R, Hobday AJ, Maxwell S, Hazen E, Hartog JR, Dunn DC et al. Dynamic ocean

management: identifying the critical ingredients of dynamic approaches to ocean resource

management. BioScience. 2015; 65 (5): 486–498. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv018.

Joliffe IP, Patman CR. The coastal zone: the challenge. J Shoreline Manag. 1985; 1 (1): 3–36.

Belton B, Bush SR, Little DC. Not just for the wealthy: rethinking farmed fish consumption in the

Global South. Glob Food Sec. 2018; 16: 85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.005.

Ehlers P. Blue growth and ocean governance—how to balance the use and the protection of the

seas. WMU J Marit Affairs. 2016; 15 (2): 187–203. doi: 10.1007/s13437-016-0104-x.

Ausgabe. Verband Deutscher Reeder, Daten der Deutschen Seeschifffahrt; 2014. p. 5, 18.

European Commission. Oceans and fisheries [Online] Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/index_en.htm. [Accessed on October 2023]

Wells S, Ravilious C 2006. In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services from

mangroves and coral reefs (No. 24). UNEP/Earthprint.

Marine and coastal act. Australia: Marine Environment & Protection Law. Poland: Marine and

Coastal Access Act. United States; 2018; 2009 (United Kingdom); Marine (Scotland) Act; 2010

(asp 5) (United Kingdom); Massachusetts Ocean Act; 2008. p. 2010 (Latvia); Act Concerning the

Maritime Areas of the Republic of Poland and the Maritime Administration, 21 March 1991.

Kidd S, Shaw D. The social and political realities of marine spatial planning: some land-based

reflections. ICES J Mar Sci. 2014; 71 (7): 1535–1541. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu006.

Downloads

Published

2023-10-25

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 2 (2023)

Section

case study

License

Declaration and Copyright Transfer Form

(to be completed by authors)

I/ We, the undersigned author(s) of the submitted manuscript, hereby declare, that the above manuscript which is submitted for publication in the STM Journals(s), is not published already in part or whole (except in the form of abstract) in any journal or magazine for private or public circulation, and, is not under consideration of publication elsewhere.

  • I/We will not withdraw the manuscript after 1 week of submission as I have read the Author Guidelines and will adhere to the guidelines.
  • I/We Author(s ) have niether given nor will give this manuscript elsewhere for publishing after submitting in STM Journal(s).
  • I/ We have read the original version of the manuscript and am/ are responsible for the thought contents embodied in it. The work dealt in the manuscript is my/ our own, and my/ our individual contribution to this work is significant enough to qualify for authorship.
  •  I/We also agree to the authorship of the article in the following order:

Author’s name                                    

 

1. ________________

2. ________________

3. ________________

4. ________________

 

We  Author(s) tick this box and would request you to consider it as our signature as we agree to the terms of this Copyright Notice, which will apply to this submission if and when it is published by this journal.